Did Ruby really kill Oswald?

[David Von Pein]

Generalization is another of their favorites...

And their all-time favorite....

Let's Pretend All The Evidence Against Oswald Is Fake & Phony So We Can Summarily Dismiss Every Last Piece Of It.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-all-of-this-evidence-planted.html

[Bill Chapman]

It's always a good idea for CTers to truncate and mangle (and, above all, isolate) an LNer's argument in order to attempt to make the LNer look like an idiot (as John just did above). Par for the CT course....of course.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

This is the LNer method
Reverse this and get the CTer method

Terminator 2

[Charles Collins]

This is the LNer method
Reverse this and get the CTer method

Terminator 2

Exactly!

[Jerry Freeman]

If we are all finished playing juxtaposition.. collation.. differentiation and Mr Chapman's obsession with the T 1000---
I would still like to know how the Oswald shooter went from being a mop head here ....



to a more business type hairstyle here....



Or did Jack Ruby receive a haircut at the police station before his mugshot?
Oh..I know what the Oswald only troupe will say...camera angle--lighting blah blah
Also....has anyone else noticed that [deliberately?] washed out face in the top picture [at the very top right]?

[John Iacoletti]

Let's Pretend All The Evidence Against Oswald Is Fake & Phony So We Can Summarily Dismiss Every Last Piece Of It.

Not even necessary. What little evidence you have is weak, circumstantial, and tainted. Even if it was all genuine, including the shells with the disappearing initials, the bag that’s invisible in the crime scene photos, and the magic disappearing and reappearing partial palmprint, it still doesn’t demonstrate that Oswald shot anybody.

Which is why empty rhetoric like Dr Peppers and rings in cups is so ridiculous.

[John Iacoletti]

It's always a good idea for CTers to truncate and mangle (and, above all, isolate) an LNer's argument in order to attempt to make the LNer look like an idiot

LNers don’t need any help in that regard.

Bugliosi make the ridiculously idiotic argument. Don’t blame me because I pointed it out.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is the LNer method
Reverse this and get the CTer method

Terminator 2

For once I agree.....

First the LNs make up, by assumption, pieces of "evidence" that did not exist before and then they create a monster.

[Dan O'meara]

For once I agree.....

First the LNs make up, by assumption, pieces of "evidence" that did not exist before and then they create a monster.

What 'pieces of "evidence" did 'LNs make up'?